Comments on: Morning Linkshttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/
It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:59:44 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3By: supercathttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1521961
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:00:22 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1521961#68: It is probably not possible for you to determine experimentally whether I have a consciousness beyond some electrons whizzing around in my neurons, nor is it possible for me to determine experimentally whether you have such consciousness, but I know that *I* have such consciousness because I personally experience it (in a way nobody else can). I would expect that you probably do likewise.

There are a lot of people who, all things considered, are pretty dumb and useless, and there are some animals which are smarter and more useful. If the former don’t deserve protection merely because they’re human, why should they be protected at all?

I see flashes of sentience in higher animals (birds and mammals) all the time. Ever see a dolphin mourn its dead baby? Or a large primate?

]]>By: Mendelismhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1520934
Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:41:02 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1520934Well I’m a materialist, and believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Thought = activity in the cerebral cortex. I believe this to be true of human brains, and non-human brains. Certainly humans are capable of much more complex thought than non-humans, but this is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. And I for one would be horrified to learn of the slaughter of, e.g. “surplus” chimpanzees. Not as horrified as I would be at human slaughter, but again a difference of degree. Cows would get less sympathy, and so on. I wouldn’t know how to quantify any of this, but hopefully you get the idea.

You can argue that materialism is based in faith, and I guess I’d have to agree, but it’s the simplest explanation for a lot of natural phenomena, and has the benefit of not requiring any extra “moving parts”, e.g. an unobservable “soul” or intelligent designer.

Which is a more reasonable statement: (1) “The evolution of consciousness most likely occurred entirely as a result of processes that are essentially understood”; or (2) “The evolution of consciousness most likely involved at least some processes which are, at least as yet, entirely beyond human understanding”? I would posit that the second is a far more reasonable and honest statement. Whether such processes included divine intervention or a space probe from Altair-VI I have no idea; nor, I strongly suspect, does any other human.

Human beings have something that be termed a consciousness, id, soul, etc. (well, I do anyway, and I don’t think I’m alone). Human biological forms may be substantially derived from those of primate ancestors, but that in no way implies that consciousness came into existence entirely through bio-mechanical processes. If one takes the point of view that a human organism is a biological machine which is fundamentally no different from any other animal, then the destruction of surplus humans should be viewed no differently from the destruction of other kinds of surplus animals. In the Twentieth Century, a number of people took that view; some still do. I would aver that a human being is a biological machine, plus a little something ‘extra’, and I see no reason to believe that little something ‘extra’ would have come into existence absent some process or phenomenon which entirely beyond human knowledge.

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.”

]]>By: Windyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1519264
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:52:14 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1519264@52, Regardless of how DR. Paul feels about evolution or religion, the point is he’s a Constitutionalist and would NEVER impose those beliefs on all Americans via his position as congressman or president. His understanding of economics, foreign policy and the Constitution make him the kind of man I DO want in the presidency.
]]>By: JShttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1518286
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:27:03 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1518286Keith “How do we the people stand a chance when our politicians lie blatantly to our faces?”

We don’t.

]]>By: Keithhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1517959
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:18:45 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1517959Unfortunate thing with the deficit is the Republicans are trying to make everyone believe it. I have written 3 different congressmen and they ALL rattle off the same lies.
How do we the people stand a chance when our politicians lie blatantly to our faces?
]]>By: DocHoliday916http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1517663
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:23:10 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1517663Keep the heat on the Fullerton PD1 Any updates on the investigation of the Allen Kephart killing in Lake Arrowhead?
]]>By: BamBamhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1516250
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:41:20 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1516250re: evolution I heard a religious zealot once say “if monkeys had human babies a long time ago which led to evolution, then why aren’t monkeys still having human babies today?” There wasn’t much I could say other than point out his statement demonstrates that he doesn’t even have a basic understanding of evolution or what the word even means.
]]>By: JORhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1515553
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:16:34 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1515553“Otherwise, we have to assume some kind of supernatural phenomenon . . . ”

Or heretofore undiscovered or unanalyzed natural phenomenon. (What would really count as ‘supernatural’ anyway? If God existed and did stuff the results would be artificial, perhaps, but not supernatural, let alone ‘unnatural’, whatever whatever that would even mean).

]]>By: Mendelismhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1515187
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:18:37 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1515187I should clarify briefly what I mean about the available data. Simply put, we have:

1. A remarkable degree of structural/anatomical similarity among extant primates, including humans, coupled with
2. Quantitative genetic distance/similarity that maps uncannily onto our structure/anatomical estimates of relatedness among species.
3. Observed examples of speciation among organisms with life cycles short enough for us to witness evolution in action.

This by itself doesn’t “prove” anything, but it makes human evolution from earlier primates the simplest, most parsimonious explanation for our species’ existence. Otherwise, we have to assume some kind of supernatural phenomenon that generated the human species such that it happens to have the properties of coincident phenotypic and genetic similarity with other existing species, which is a bit nutty IMHO. Unless God is trying to trick us, as He is wont to do…

I agree with all that, but I get the sense that the primary reason that people profess skepticism of “evolution” is that they’re uncomfortable specifically with the idea that humans evolved from non-human primates. Given the available data, the reluctance to accept this idea is pretty unscientific, and perhaps a little crazy.

(I say this as someone who changed his party affiliation to R for the sole purpose of voting for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries, and plan to do so again this cycle.)

]]>By: Nickhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/23/morning-links-525/comment-page-2/#comment-1514999
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:11:02 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=21845#comment-1514999Is there any condition in an officer’s oath or contract that requires him or her to follow the law? In all these cases where officers demand people stop photographing or videotaping, when it is their right to do so (it is, right?), or when they violate people’s rights in other ways, I wonder whether the officers could be seen to no longer be officers, and to no longer carry the force of the law?
]]>